Re: [mpls] Early AD comments on draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates

[Eric Osborne <[e-mail]>]

OK.  Here's the exact text I've got:


--
8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
   as "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to
   show [RFC6378] and [RFC-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-03].  Note that this
   action provides documentation of an action already taken by IANA but
   not recorded in RFC 6378.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC
---


I wasn't sure if [This.ID] was intended to provoke variable
substitution, nor was I sure whether the square brackets meant that
the self-reference should also be a normative reference (to the
eventual This.RFC).  It seems overkill for a document to cite itself
as a normative reference ("in order to understand this document, you
should read it")...but on the other hand, perhaps we should start
doing that for all drafts that come out of MPLS now.

I took the exact formatting from the reference section of the MPLS PSC
TLV Registry, which does it like this:

---
Reference
  [RFC6378][RFC-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-04]
---

and I did not cite the draft itself in its normative reference section.

Please let me know if this exact text is acceptable and then I will
post the draft.





eric


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I can live with the:
>
> "...update the references to show [RFC6378], [This ID]".
>
> It is correct that the action was taken for RFC 6378, but it is
> also correct that it was never mentioned in RFC 6378. So I guess
> that what we need to say is:
>
>
> "IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
>  as "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to
>  show [RFC6378], [This.I-D].  Note that this action provides
>
>  documentation of an action already taken by IANA but not recorded
>  in RFC 6378. This is an update to RFC 6378."
>
> /Loa
>
>
> On 2014-03-20 17:26, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>
>> The action was taken for RFC 6378, so it should be mentioned.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Eric Osborne [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 20 March 2014 16:18
>>> To: Adrian Farrel
>>> Cc: Eric Osborne; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: Early AD comments on draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates
>>>
>>> OK.
>>> Loa's suggestion is
>>>
>>> "... update the reference to RFC 6378 to say [this ID]"
>>>
>>> Adrian's is "...update the references to show [RFC6378], [This ID]".
>>>
>>> I think Loa's makes more sense...why would we have the registry
>>> allocation point to both 6378 and thisID if 6378 doesn't say anything?
>>>
>>> Whatever text you guys agree on, I'll use.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> eric
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you're right. Should be a comma not a period.
>>>>
>>>> A
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Eric Osborne [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: 20 March 2014 14:39
>>>>> To: Adrian Farrel
>>>>> Cc: Eric Osborne; [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Early AD comments on draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Adrian-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    Thanks for these.  I am OK with them and will add them to the
>>>>> version I post next. I'm not clear on the nuances of your IANA text,
>>>>> though.  You say:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
>>>>> as "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to
>>>>> show [RFC6378].
>>>>> [This.I-D].  Note that this action provides documentation of an action
>>>>> already taken by IANA but not recorded in RFC 6378.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly does the [This.I-D] do in its own sentence?  Did you mean
>>>>> something like " update the references to show [RFC6378] and
>>>>> [This.I-D].  Note that this action..." or is there something subtle
>>>>> I'm not picking up on with your original phrasing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> eric
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A couple of discussion points on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu (which is
>>>>
>>>> currently
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in IESG evaluation) have given rise to two small proposed additions to
>>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. I think this warrants a very small section of its own...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> x.y  PSC TLV Format
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [RFC6378] defines the capability to carry TLVs in the PSC messages.
>>>>>> This
>>>>
>>>> section
>>>>>>
>>>>>> defines the format to be used by all such TLVs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Type field (T)
>>>>>> A two octet field that encodes a type value in network byte order. The
>>
>> type
>>>>>>
>>>>>> values are recorded in the IANA registry "MPLS PSC TLV Registry".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Length field (L)
>>>>>> A two octet field that encodes the length in octets of the Value field
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> network byte order. The value of this field MUST be a multiple of 4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Value field (V)
>>>>>> The contents of the TLV. This field MUST be a multiple of 4 octets and
>>>>>> so
>>>>
>>>> may
>>>>>>
>>>>>> contain explicit padding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. There was a trivial snafu with the 0 value in the "MPLS PSC TLV
>>>>
>>>> Registry". It
>>>>>>
>>>>>> was agreed that 0 would be reserved, but this was not recorded in RFC
>>
>> 6378.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore, the IANA section of draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates should
>>>>>> include
>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> text...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IANA is requested to mark the value 0 in the "MPLS PSC TLV Registry"
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> "Reserved, not to be allocated" and to update the references to show
>>>>>
>>>>> [RFC6378].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [This.I-D].  Note that this action provides documentation of an action
>>>>
>>>> already
>>>>>>
>>>>>> taken by IANA but not recorded in RFC 6378.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope everyone is comfortable with this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Adrian
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]